The court system is often better equipped to safeguard individuals than the elected branches of government. This is because judges are independent and adhere to the rule of law, unlike elected officials who may be swayed by political considerations or public opinion. In cases involving civil liberties or minority rights, courts act as a check on the power of elected officials. A good example of this is the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite resistance from elected officials in some states.

Federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, are appointed rather than elected. This has led some people to perceive the federal courts as anti-democratic. While elected officials in Congress and the executive branch derive their authority from popular votes, federal judges are appointed for life, often by presidents who themselves are elected. However, the appointment of federal judges serves to insulate them from political pressures and ensure impartiality in adjudicating legal disputes. The reason for appointing federal judges, rather than electing them, may stem from concerns about the influence of political factions or special interests. By appointing judges based on merit and legal expertise, rather than popular appeal, the aim is to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights against the tyranny of the majority.